Wouldn't the same expense also apply to a new ground being built on the same plot? Or is it the residential aspect?

Different parameters are used to measure contamination within garden areas. Whilst it's under the terracing or hardstanding it's not a problem, notwithstanding handling the stuff, but it can be permanently buried under structures (and that also includes roads and houses). It can be buried under garden if there is sufficient clean cover placed as mitigation. It's no big thing to overcome, just makes the land less valuable.

I wouldn't have thought it would be much of a problem for a retail development.

It isn't really. Expensive to handle but it can be overcome. If 88m don't like the costs involved in sorting then who knows they could look to sell.

Khlav had answerd but yes, different threshold for residential. However if you wanted to remove the Northern terrace to build a new stand with concessions, toilets etc beneath then it would nave to be removed at considerable expense but if you just laid concrete on top of the fill you would probably be okay.

aww, c'mon......88m are gonna play down the value of the plot any way they can, its in their interests to say its contaminated and hardly worth what they paid for it, (not that anybody even knows) keeping everyone in the dark as to their intentions, its all mind games.
Make no mistake, 88m weren't doing anybody any favours by buying it, its bought to develop and make lots of money.....for 88m.....The End.
I don't know the wheels and deals surrounding the sale, or the newmarket thing, who colluded with who and why, the suggestions of hidden agendas and conflict of interests, I dunno any of that, but it all stinks to hell and back and there doesn't seem to be much recourse without some solid facts.
There may be some solid facts, and I trust those who have them are playing their cards with Wakey's best interests in mind, that means not blathering it all over the internet until its prudent to do so.

88m are not saying its contaminated, they took a punt and bought the site unseen and without surveys as far as I understand.

We know what they paid for it.

Why is it in their interest to say its contaminated (they have not). If they sell it on any sensible purchaser would undertake due diligence and full site investigations to establish its actual value.

what did they pay for it ?

Not sure Manni Hussain would be happy if we revealed on here what he paid.

However when he registers the title it often mentions the purchase price so if you go nosying on the Land Registry web site you may find it there at some time.

I seem to remember when it went up for sale on the sale agents website it was offers of the region of above £600,000. What exactly was paid I don't know, it could have been more or. maybe been less. Maybe now the sale has gone through the actual figure is on land registry records which I think members of the public can access.

To buy it without a ground investigation report is risky business so it must have been a price he could afford to lose.

May as well, MC said £760k in an interview last week.

So 88M went down the casino bet 760k on red

hmm...?

I dunno anything about the cost of land but 760k doesn't sound like a lot.....that's 5 houses on my street

In the absence of a fully costed development plan we're just gonna have to join a few dots together and guestimate

In all seriousness, perhaps it was that cheap they will recoup their investment no matter what, doesn't seem like much of a punt to me, but what do I know.

Common opinion is £760K for the ground and the yearly rent is £50K.

If so you could most likely buy the place and the mortgage repayments would be covered at that.

However we were advised not to by all accounts looks like someone slipped up big style (not MC but the 'advisor')

I think we have to accept that Michael Carter will do what's best for the club AND what's best for the city.

I think we also need to accept that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive ventures

Guide price was 600k. I think the rent is circa 60k per annum, a touch more than it was last year.

Devils advocate time. Could it be that Yorkcourt actually had every intention of putting their offer in but couldn't raise the funds in time and in between 88m nipped in and with the funds ready there and then and got the deal done. Not necessarily underhanded but more underfunded.

It could also be a matter of what Yorkcourt were willing to buy, both the ground and the bowling alley were up for sale. Perhaps Yorkcourt only planned on buying the ground and took that offer to the BoI, but 88M came in with an offer for both plots, then the BoI would sell both of them together as it's easier and probably cheaper for them.

The superbowl wasn't the BoI's to sell.

Perhaps not, but i think they were being sold through the same agent and if one of the was sold as an individual plot, it would make the other one harder to sell. Neither plot is huge, but together they make a decent size plot. Perhaps the agent told both owners to accept a discounted price if a single buyer was found for both plots.

It was different agents as well i think, the superbowl was Pudney Shuttleworth, Belle Vue i forget the name but it wasn't them. IIRC 88m got the superbowl deal done first so it made sense to follow it up with BV. It seems bank took the slightly lower but guarenteed quick deal rather than hold out for a little more bit risk Yorkcourt not having the funds and then 88m offering lower.

Was really hoping that when 88m group bought the ground that the stadium could have had a total facelift.

Looking at the ground and superbowl area, with a blank canvas there is quite a large area to work with.

The only downer for me is the kichen showroom and the building next to it. Not sure whether theyre flats or not. Dont seem to see many people round them though

I heard the 88m group made an offer on them as well. I can't see a downside for them if we move? Surely that just gives them carte Blanche to do whatever they want at a large site, on a main road out of a city centre? .
Why would they consider doing up the ground, when they would make more money making it a small retail park or whatever? Or am I missing something?

Werent they hoping though to re vamp the ground with a few food retail outlets built within it plus some student accommodation

Probably not viable when they looked into how much that would cost them and how little it would bring back in return. It's easier to get rid of us and then they'll have a plot size slightly larger than the new development on snowhill. Easily enough space for 8-10 medium sized units as well as a separate fastfood place and parking